CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 février 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   80 5.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning Turkey, Hungary and   Italy   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five Chamber judgments, none of which are final. [1]   Length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.   Violation of Article 5 § 1 Değerli and Others v. Turkey (application no. 18242/02) The four applicants, Ali Değerli, Erdal Yıldız, Yaşar Yağan and Nurettin Işık, are Turkish nationals. They were placed in pre-trial detention in December 2000 on suspicion of having taken part in riots inside Ümraniye prison, where they were being held. Their release was ordered on 3 July 2001. However, they were not released until 4 July 2001.   Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, they complained, among other things, that they had been kept in detention arbitrarily and unlawfully.   The European Court of Human Rights found that the applicants’ continued pre-trial detention during the hours after their release had been ordered breached the requirements of Article 5 §   1 of the Convention and that the delays observed could not be justified by the large number of detainees being released. It held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 §   1 and awarded the applicants 1,000 euros (EUR) each for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,500 jointly for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Length-of-proceedings cases   In the following cases, the applicants complained in particular about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. The remainder of the complaints in the cases of Sirkó and Others , Szőke and Tót were declared inadmissible.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Glöckler and Others v. Hungary (no. 17628/04) Sirkó and Others v. Hungary (no. 44822/04) Szőke v. Hungary (no. 22736/04) Tót v. Hungary and Italy (no. 44746/04)   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.